D&D 5E 5e Philosophy of System Mastery

[FlyingChihuahua]

I would rather a sytem that rewards a player for selecting the Prodigy feat because their character is an expert in History and tapestry making than rewarded a player for selecting Great Weapon Master because it maximised their DPS.

As long as the player is having fun and is excited about the character, who really gives a damn?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

As long as the player is having fun and is excited about the character, who really gives a damn?

Well, that's the thing, isn't it? So long as you don't set out to "reward" system mastery, no one.

But rewarding "system mastery" is the same as punishing a lack of "system mastery", even when that is a deliberate choice, rather than a case of not knowing the rules like the back of your hand.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

Well, that's the thing, isn't it? So long as you don't set out to "reward" system mastery, no one.

But rewarding "system mastery" is the same as punishing a lack of "system mastery", even when that is a deliberate choice, rather than a case of not knowing the rules like the back of your hand.

Is it though? In 5e it's incredibly hard to make a bad character unless you're deliberately trying. As long as you put a 16 in your main attacking stat (which I feel should be obvious and it even recommends you do that in the book) you're gonna be fine. The only problem I can see is overshadowing other people's niches, but again, as long as you just pay attention to party compilation, you're gonna be fine.

I mean, if a player wants to turn the enemies into paste, and they aren't encroaching on another player's paste making abilities, let them have their fun. You can still challenge them in combat and other stuff.

 

[S'mon]

But if a player sits down next to me as a player (or in front of me when I’m a DM) with a character who has an AC 30+ then I’m getting up and walking off.

I cap AC (& other DCs) at 30, and I find this works best in 5e's Bounded Accuracy system.

But I agree with Mearls, things like granting the Rogue a Reaction attack so he gets Sneak Attack twice in one round are great. I've also made my peace with my son's PC's one level of Barbarian & 12 of Rogue making him an incredibly tough incredibly deadly DPS tank monstrosity.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Is it though? In 5e it's incredibly hard to make a bad character unless you're deliberately trying. As long as you put a 16 in your main attacking stat (which I feel should be obvious and it even recommends you do that in the book) you're gonna be fine.

It's relative, isn't it? It's entirely possible in 5e to make a character who performs considerably better than "16 in your attack stat*", and the thrust of the OP is that people who do so need to be rewarded. With the corollary: people who don't should be punished.


*Even then, you are still punishing half orc bards and similar unusual race/class choices.

 

[S'mon]

It's relative, isn't it? It's entirely possible in 5e to make a character who performs considerably better than "16 in your attack stat*", and the thrust of the OP is that people who do so need to be rewarded. With the corollary: people who don't should be punished.

*Even then, you are still punishing half orc bards and similar unusual race/class choices.

I think there's an overly broad definition of 'punishment' around these days.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I think there's an overly broad definition of 'punishment' around these days.

Not receiving a reward is a punishment. It has nothing to do with "these days", it has always been the case.

If you say to a child "if you are good you will get a sweet". Then "you haven't been good so you don't get a sweet" you are punishing them.

 

[mortwatcher]

5E did a good job of rewarding the system master by doing a bit more damage/being more efficient while also making the baseline strong enough that you do not feel like a complete chump in comparison if you do not know the system so well

Not receiving a reward is a punishment. It has nothing to do with "these days", it has always been the case.

If you say to a child "if you are good you will get a sweet". Then "you haven't been good so you don't get a sweet" you are punishing them.

I would say punishing them is giving them a whooping after they were not good.
denying reward for not performing to expectation is not a punishment imo

 

[S'mon]

Not receiving a reward is a punishment.

Nope!!!

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I would say punishing them is giving them a whooping after they were not good.

If you are in the habit of "whooping" a child, then not "whooping" them when they behave as you want is a reward.